Frank Coughlan: The last survivors of Hiroshima have lessons for us 80 years on – we should listen to them
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
a minute ago
- Gizmodo
Nvidia Just Dodged an $8 Billion Bullet, Thanks to Donald Trump
It's a major victory for the world's most valuable company in the ongoing tech war. The Trump administration has reportedly granted Nvidia a license to resume selling its specialized AI chips to the lucrative Chinese market, a decision that follows months of high-stakes lobbying and direct appeals to the White House by CEO Jensen Huang. The move is a massive financial relief for the AI giant. It allows Nvidia to avoid a projected $8 billion revenue shortfall for the fiscal year and re-enter a market that Huang himself estimates will be worth $50 billion in the coming years. According to the Financial Times, the breakthrough came after Huang's visit to the White House on August 6 to meet with President Donald Trump. Just two days later, the Commerce Department, which oversees export controls, reportedly issued the first licenses for Nvidia to sell its H2O chips in China. This decision is the latest chapter in the ongoing U.S.-China tech war. The core issue is the fear that advanced American technology could be used by Beijing to develop sophisticated military AI. To prevent this, the U.S. has imposed strict export controls, blocking the sale of top-tier AI chips to China. Nvidia's most powerful processors, like its Blackwell series, are banned for export to China. In response, Nvidia cleverly designed the H2O chip, a less-powerful version of its advanced technology, specifically tailored to comply with the original export rules. However, the Trump administration took an even tougher stance in April, banning the sale of even these de-powered H2O chips. The move sent shockwaves through Nvidia. The company was forced to halt shipments, resulting in a $4.5 billion charge for excess inventory and purchase obligations. In May, Nvidia warned investors that the restrictions would cost the company an estimated $8 billion in revenue for the full fiscal year. Reversing this policy took months of intense diplomacy and lobbying, culminating in Huang's personal visits to the White House. The CEO's charm offensive appears to have worked, drastically changing President Trump's perspective on the company. During a White House AI summit last month, Trump admitted he had initially considered taking antitrust action against the chip giant before he got to know its CEO. 'I said, 'Look, we'll break this guy up,' before I learned the facts of life,' Trump said of Huang during a speech. 'I said, 'Who the hell is he? What's his name? What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before.'' The president continued, 'Then I got to know Jensen, and now I see why,' inviting Huang, who was in the audience, to stand up. That meeting appears to have been the turning point, convincing the administration that protecting Nvidia's financial health was crucial for maintaining America's lead in the global AI race. For Nvidia, the news is a massive relief. The company, which last month became the first to reach a $4 trillion market value, is now hovering around $4.45 trillion. With the $8 billion revenue threat now averted and the $50 billion China market reopened, investors will be watching closely when Nvidia reports its quarterly earnings later this month. Another strong report could easily push the AI titan past the unprecedented $5 trillion threshold. Nvidia and the Commerce Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How Trump's judicial picks could shape abortion rights for decades
A review by The Associated Press shows that several of President Donald Trump's nominees to the federal courts have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions. Anti-abortion activists demonstrate at the US Supreme Court to mark the third anniversary of 'Roe v. Wade' being overturned in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2025. (AFP File) Several have helped defend their state's abortion restrictions in court and some have been involved in cases with national impact, including on access to medication abortion. While Trump has said issues related to abortion should be left to the states, the nominees, with lifetime appointments, would be in position to roll back abortion rights long after Trump leaves the White House. Trump has been inconsistent on abortion Trump has repeatedly shifted his messaging on abortion, often giving contradictory or vague answers. In the years before his most recent presidential campaign, Trump had voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks in pregnancy and said he might support a national ban around 15 weeks. He later settled on messaging that decisions about abortion access should be left to the states. Throughout his campaign, Trump has alternated between taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade and striking a more neutral tone. That's been an effort to navigate the political divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the broader public, which largely supports access to abortion. Many nominees have anti-abortion backgrounds One Trump nominee called abortion a 'barbaric practice" while another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement. A nominee from Tennessee said abortion deserves special scrutiny because 'this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.' One from Missouri spread misinformation about medication abortion, including that it 'starves the baby to death in the womb' in a lawsuit aiming to challenge the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Legal experts and abortion rights advocates warn of a methodical remaking of the federal courts in a way that could pose enduring threats to abortion access nationwide. Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial appointments 'are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.' 'It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,' she said. The nominees represent Trump's 'promises' to Americans, White House says Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said 'every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling.' 'The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump's commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion,' Fields said in a statement to the AP. Trump focused primarily on the economy and immigration during his 2024 campaign, the issues that surveys showed were the most important topics for voters. Anti-abortion groups, abortion rights advocates respond Anti-abortion advocates say it's premature to determine whether the nominees will support their objectives but that they're hopeful based on the names put forth so far. 'We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,' said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organization SBA Pro-Life America. Abortion rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time 'This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion, saying he's going to leave it to the states, while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government,' said Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All.
India.com
2 minutes ago
- India.com
Trumps Tariff Backfires: Spain, Switzerland, India Inflict Damage In Billions Of Dollars To America Over F-35 Deal
US President Donald Trump's tariff decisions and his stand on NATO have started backfiring and are all set to hurt the American economy and firms. While the US citizens are feeling the heat of high prices of goods due to tariffs, its defence firms are also losing out on key deals with countries like Spain, Switzerland and India. Trump has been pushing hard to sell the F-35 fighter jets to foreign nations, but has also been imposing tariffs on nations with which it wants to trade. In a setback for Trump's policies, European nations are getting disillusioned with America's muscle-flexing moves. Donald Trump's NATO funding demands and unease about Washington's influence over allied defence systems and tariffs row have forced Spain and Switzerland to reportedly scrap their plans to buy US-built F-35 fighter jets, said reports. According to reports, the Defence Ministry confirmed that Madrid would stick with its existing Eurofighter Typhoon fleet and transition to the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) in the coming years. Most of the country's €10.5 billion boost in defence spending will now be channelled to European manufacturers, with plans to expand the Typhoon fleet to 115 aircraft. Twenty-five new jets are expected to arrive between 2026 and 2030. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez dismissed Trump's proposal for NATO nations to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 — more than double the alliance's current 2% benchmark — calling it 'unreasonable.' He stressed that Europe should not rely on U.S. protection, stating, 'Only Europe will know how to protect Europe.' Trump criticised Spain's stance as 'very unfair' and hinted at possible trade retaliation, further straining relations. Reports suggest Switzerland's pullback from the deal follows a separate trade dispute. U.S. tariffs — including a 39% duty on Swiss exports such as watches and coffee capsules, the steepest among developed nations — were introduced after trade talks with Bern broke down. The 2021 order for 36 F-35s, worth 7.3 billion Swiss francs (about $9.1 billion), has since faced mounting opposition in the Swiss parliament.
